If A Separate Suit For Possession Is Permissible, Same Relief Can Be Added By Amendment In Pending Suit: Allahabad High Court

“Mere Framing Of Issues Does Not Mean Trial Has Commenced Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC”, In a significant ruling on amendment of pleadings, the Allahabad High Court held that a plaintiff can amend the plaint to include relief of possession when dispossession occurs during the pendency of the suit, especially when such amendment is based on a subsequent cause of action and is within the limitation period.

Allahabad High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the orders of the trial court and revisional court which had rejected the plaintiff’s amendment application.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held that if the plaintiff could have filed a separate suit for possession, there is no reason why the same relief cannot be incorporated through amendment in the pending suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The dispute arose from a civil suit for declaration filed on 29 May 2015, in which the plaintiff claimed ownership of the disputed property on the basis of a Will executed by the original owner in his favour.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants forcibly took possession of the property in June 2019.

Consequently, the plaintiff filed an application in May 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate an additional relief of possession.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the application was filed after nearly three years of the alleged dispossession and that issues had already been framed in the suit, meaning the trial had commenced and the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The trial court rejected the amendment application on 23 February 2024, and the revisional court also dismissed the revision on 03 July 2024. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Amendment Based On Subsequent Cause Of Action

The High Court observed that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was based on a cause of action that arose during the pendency of the suit, namely the alleged dispossession in June 2019.

Justice Nigam noted that the amendment application filed in May 2022 was within the three-year limitation period for filing a suit for possession.

The Court held:

“Once a separate suit is permissible, there is no reason to deny a relief by amendment in the pending suit as the same will avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.”

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559, where it was held that allowing amendment to incorporate relief arising from subsequent events does not alter the basic structure of the suit but merely modifies the nature of relief sought.

Delay Alone Cannot Be Ground To Reject Amendment

The respondents argued that the amendment should not be allowed because it was filed nearly three years after the alleged dispossession.

Rejecting this contention, the Court reiterated that mere delay is not sufficient to reject an amendment application, particularly when the amendment is sought before commencement of trial.

The Court emphasized that the question of delay must be examined with reference to the stage of proceedings rather than the date of institution of the suit.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, the Court reiterated:

“A mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment.”

The Court also clarified that pre-trial amendments should ordinarily be allowed liberally so that the real controversy between the parties can be determined effectively.

When Does Trial Commence Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

A key issue before the Court was whether the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which restricts amendments after commencement of trial.

The respondents argued that the trial had commenced because issues had already been framed in the suit.

However, the High Court rejected this argument, relying on precedents including Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra (2018) 2 SCC 132.

The Court observed:

“Normally the trial commences with the leading of evidence and not merely upon framing of issues.”

Since no evidence had been led by either party at the time the amendment application was filed, the Court held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was not attracted.

Courts Cannot Prejudge Merits Of Amendment

The High Court also criticized the reasoning adopted by the courts below, noting that they had effectively prejudged the merits of the amendment while deciding the amendment application.

The issue as to which party was actually in possession of the disputed property, the Court held, could only be determined after evidence is led during trial.

Therefore, rejecting the amendment on the ground that the defendants claimed possession in their written statement was legally erroneous.

Exercise Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

Considering the errors committed by the courts below, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Instead of remitting the matter back to the trial court, the Court directly allowed the amendment application, noting that the suit had already been pending since 2019.

The Court accordingly quashed the orders dated 23 February 2024 and 03 July 2024 passed by the trial and revisional courts.

The petitioner was directed to carry out the amendment in the plaint within three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the trial court.

The judgment reiterates the principle that procedural rules governing amendment of pleadings should be applied liberally when the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties.

The Allahabad High Court clarified that subsequent events during pendency of litigation may justify amendment of pleadings, particularly when such amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and does not change the fundamental nature of the suit.

The ruling also reinforces that trial under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is considered to commence when evidence begins, not merely when issues are framed.

Date of Decision: 27 February 2026